Influence of Race, Ethnicity and Social Determinants of Health on Diabetes Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence that race, ethnicity and social determinants of health significantly influence outcomes for patients with diabetes. A better understanding of the mechanisms of these relationships or associations would improve development of cost-effective, culturally tailored programs for patients with diabetes. METHODS: This article reviews the current state of the literature on the influence of race and ethnicity and social determinants of health on process of care, quality of care and outcomes for diabetes, with particular emphasis on the rural South to give an overview of the state of the literature. RESULTS: The literature review shows that racial or ethnic differences in the clinical outcomes for diabetes, including glycemic, blood pressure (BP) and lipid control, continue to persist. In addition, the literature review shows that the role of social determinants of health on outcomes, and the possible role these determinants play in disparities have largely been ignored. Psychosocial factors, such as self-efficacy, depression, social support and perceived stress, show consistent associations with self-care, quality of life and glycemic control. Neighborhood factors, such as food insecurity, social cohesion and neighborhood esthetics have been associated with glycemic control. Perceived discrimination has also been associated with self-care and the psychological component of quality of life. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals need to be skilled in assessing social determinants of health and taking them into consideration in clinical care. In addition, more research is needed to identify the separate and combined influence of race and ethnicity and social determinants of health on process of care, quality of care and outcomes in diabetes, especially in the South, where the burden of disease is particularly high.

Meaning of Illness and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between meaning of illness and cardiovascular disease risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The sample population was recruited from primary care clinics in the southeastern United States. The meaning of illness was assessed by a validated questionnaire with 5 subscales. The primary outcomes were cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, assessed by A1C, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Multivariate linear regression models investigated associations between the clinical outcomes and the 5 MIQ factors, controlling for possible confounders. RESULTS: The sample comprised 302 black and white participants of whom more than half were elderly (65+ years) and the vast majority were male (98%). Systolic blood pressure was positively associated with non-anticipated vulnerability. Diastolic blood pressure was negatively associated with degree of stress/change in commitments and positively associated with challenge/motivation/hope and non-anticipated vulnerability. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly and negatively associated with degree of stress/change in commitments. CONCLUSIONS: Meaning of illness had a significant effect on measured outcomes of CVD risk. The specific factor included in the overarching concept of meaning of illness differed in its influence, with more positive views of stress/commitments associated with lower blood pressure and LDL but more positive views of the challenge/hope/motivation and negative views of non-anticipated vulnerability associated with diabetes associated with higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

Meaning of illness and quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Investigations into personal factors influencing quality of life are important for those developing strategies to support patients with diabetes. This study aimed to investigate the influence of meaning of illness on quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Veterans from primary care clinics in the southeastern United States completed a questionnaire including questions from the validated 5-scale Meaning of Illness Questionnaire (MIQ). Unadjusted and adjusted linear regression models investigated the physical and mental components of quality of life with the 5 MIQ factors. RESULTS: The sample comprised 302 Black and White veterans. The physical component of quality of life (PCS) was positively associated with type of stress/attitude of harm (ß = 2.43, CI: 0.94 to 3.93) and challenge/motivation/hope (ß = 3.02, CI: 0.40 to 5.64) after adjustment, whereas the mental component of quality of life (MCS) was positively associated with the degree of stress/change in commitment (ß = 2.58, CI: 0.78 to 4.38), and negatively associated with challenge/motivation/hope (ß = -2.55, CI: -4.99 to -0.11). CONCLUSION: Attitudes of challenge, motivation and hope had opposite effects on mental and physical components of quality of life in this sample of veterans. Additionally, whereas, the type of stress and attitude towards harm or loss was associated with the physical component, the degree of stress and change in commitments was associated with the mental component. This suggests addressing the meaning of an illness may be complex but is an important consideration in improving both physical and mental components of quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Meaning of illness and self-care in patients with type 2 diabetes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between meaning of illness, diabetes knowledge, self-care understanding, and behaviors in a group of individuals with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes completed questionnaires with measures for diabetes knowledge, self-care understanding, diet adherence, and control problems based on the validated Diabetes Care Profile, as well as a 5-factor Meaning of Illness Questionnaire (MIQ) measure. Linear regression investigated the associations between self-care outcomes and the 5 MIQ factors. RESULTS: After adjustment for possible confounders, both diabetes self-care understanding and diet adherence were negatively and significantly associated with little effect of illness. Control problems were negatively associated with degree of stress/change in commitments. Diabetes knowledge was not significantly associated with meaning of illness. CONCLUSION: Aspects of the meaning attributed to illness were significantly associated with self-care in patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, cognitive appraisals may explain variances observed in self-care understanding and behaviors. Based on these results, it is important to understand the negative effect that diabetes could have when promoting self-care understanding and diet adherence. In addition, it shows that helping patients address the stress and changing commitments that result from diabetes may help decrease the amount of diabetes control problems, even if there is little effect on diabetes understanding. Taking these differences into account may help in creating more personalized and effective self-care education plans.

Impact of social determinants of health on outcomes for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.

Social determinants of health include the social and economic conditions that influence health status. Research into the impact of social determinants on individuals with type 2 diabetes has largely focused on the prevention of or risk of developing diabetes. No review exists summarizing the impact of social determinants of health outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. This systematic review examined whether social determinants of health have an impact on health outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Medline was searched for articles that (a) were published in English (b) targeted adults, ages 18 + years, (c) had a study population which was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, (d) the study was done in the United States, and (e) the study measured at least one of the outcome measures-glycemic control, cholesterol (LDL), blood pressure, quality of life or cost. Using a reproducible strategy, 2,110 articles were identified, and 61 were reviewed based on inclusion criteria. Twelve were categorized as Economic Stability and Education, 17 were categorized as Social and Community Context, 28 were categorized as Health and Health Care, and three were categorized as Neighborhood and Built Environment. Based on the studies reviewed, social determinants have an impact on glycemic control, LDL, and blood pressure to varying degrees. The impact on cost and quality of life was not often measured, but when quality of life was investigated, it did show significance. More research is needed to better characterize the direct impact of social determinants of health on health outcomes in diabetes.

Gender differences in composite control of cardiovascular risk factors among patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Disparities in outcomes for cardiovascular disease (CVD) exist between men and women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We examined gender differences in composite control of cardiovascular risk factors in a sample of adults with T2DM. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of 680 people recruited from three primary care settings. Primary outcomes were individual and composite control of CVD risk factors. Control of individual risk outcomes was defined as glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of <7%, blood pressure (BP) of <130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of <100 mg/dL. Composite control was defined as having all three outcomes under control simultaneously. Linear and logistic regression models were used to assess differences in individual means and individual and composite outcomes control between men and women, while adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Men made up 56% of the sample, approximately 67% were non-Hispanic black, and 78% made less than $35,000 annually. Unadjusted mean systolic BP (134 mm Hg vs. 130 mm Hg, P=0.005) and LDL cholesterol (99.7 mg/dL vs. 87.6 mg/dL, P<0.001) levels were significantly higher in women than in men. Adjusted linear regression showed mean diastolic BP (ß=3.09; 95% confidence interval 0.56, 5.63) was significantly higher in women. Overall, 12.4% of the sample had composite control, and women had poorer composite control compared with men (5.9% vs. 17.3%). Adjusted logistic models showed that men were significantly more likely to have composite risk factor control (odds ratio 2.90; 95% confidence interval 1.37, 6.13) compared with women. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of adults with T2DM, women had significantly lower composite control compared with men, when adjusting for relevant confounders. It is imperative that women are informed about CVD risk factors, educated on how to reduce them, and aggressively treated to avoid adverse outcomes. Additional research involving women is needed to explore and reduce disparities in CVD risk between men and women with T2DM.